By Ruth Richardson >https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/01/09/submission-on-the-treaty-principles-bill-by-ruth-richardson/
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 01:24:41 -0000 (UTC), TonySo?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By Ruth Richardson >>https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/01/09/submission-on-the-treaty-principles-bill-by-ruth-richardson/
The submission by Ruth Richardson was discussed in nz.general some
time ago
- needless to say it reflect the racist and incorrectGarbage. The bill is not racist, in fact the opposite.
interpretation of the Treaty that is merely being parroted in an
attempt to provide ACT with weapons to destroy New Zealand through >intolerance and the attitude that money can buy anything, (and that
those without money do not matter)
And here is one from the Wellington City Council >https://wellington.govt.nz/news-and-events/news-and-information/our-wellington/2025/01/wcc-treaty-bill-submissionA cesspit of racist policy.
Passed 15 3 by the Council - apparently there are 3 ACT supporters onAs above, A cesspit.
the Council! Still that is probably a reasonable indication of the
extent of support within the community - I am very surprised that the
NZ Taxpayer Union has not slammed them for the dreadful distraction
from important issues and the enormous cost for this senseless offence
to the majority of New Zealanders. Looking on the bright side however,
there must be a chance that Seymour will so annoy most New Zealanders
that even Epsom may rebel and revert to form by electing a National
Party drone instead . . .
By Ruth Richardson https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/01/09/submission-on-the-treaty-principles-bill-by-ruth-richardson/
On 2025-01-09, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By Ruth Richardson
https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/01/09/submission-on-the-treaty-principles-bill-by-ruth-richardson/
Another fine submission. Certainly along similar lines to Tim's one.
Contains many of the same view points even from a slightly different angle.
In away you have to feel sorry for the PM as there has been such a great >respone by the number of submissions. To not support the Bill further than
it has gone will use up a great deal of political capital.
On 9 Jan 2025 06:41:22 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-01-09, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By Ruth Richardson
https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/01/09/submission-on-the-treaty-principles-bill-by-ruth-richardson/
Another fine submission. Certainly along similar lines to Tim's one.
Contains many of the same view points even from a slightly different angle. >>
In away you have to feel sorry for the PM as there has been such a great >>respone by the number of submissions. To not support the Bill further than >>it has gone will use up a great deal of political capital.
The response to the Bill has clearly illustrated that what gets media >attention is not the worthiness of the intent of the bill but the >newsworthiness of those that oppose the Bill without specifying why. >Opponents simply reference the name of the Bill, never its actual
contents.
The value here is that what has happened will shape future policy -
most likely from ACT but also possibly from National and NZF. My
guess is that there will be another attempt at what this Bill is
trying to achieve, and the party that does this may well be part of a
future Government because of it.
On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 20:30:37 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 06:41:22 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-01-09, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
By Ruth Richardson
https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/01/09/submission-on-the-treaty-principles-bill-by-ruth-richardson/
Another fine submission. Certainly along similar lines to Tim's one.
Contains many of the same view points even from a slightly different angle. >>>
In away you have to feel sorry for the PM as there has been such a great >>>respone by the number of submissions. To not support the Bill further than >>>it has gone will use up a great deal of political capital.
Certainly there have been a lot of submissions, but it will apparently
take until early February to analyse them, and see how many support
the Bill and how many do not.
The response to the Bill has clearly illustrated that what gets media >>attention is not the worthiness of the intent of the bill but the >>newsworthiness of those that oppose the Bill without specifying why. >>Opponents simply reference the name of the Bill, never its actual
contents.
The newsworthiness of those that support the Bill has been increasing
for some time - see this link from a year ago: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlQOw6qpblY&t=2s
and here are another couple on a similar topic: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ra5vzpOjA&t=41s >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtro43Y961Y
The value here is that what has happened will shape future policy -
most likely from ACT but also possibly from National and NZF. My
guess is that there will be another attempt at what this Bill is
trying to achieve, and the party that does this may well be part of a >>future Government because of it.
I guess there is a chance that Christopher Luxon may agree to provide
some support - we do not know what hold Seymour or Atlas have over
him, but there is sufficient concern within the ranks of the National
Party that I suspect this is unlikely. I doubt Winston Peters would
want the opprobrium that would come from his party supporting it -
despite his age I expect he will try to get at least one more term in >parliament . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:58:44 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,114 |